How many people are doing this? Is this an FDA approved practice?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Vegetarian for you?
- Thread starter King Phenomenon
- Start date
That's not meat. Try again.
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
So your nonsensical claim that "Eating meat and animal products doesn't require killing any beings" should have said "Eating meat and animal products doesn't require killing any beings by me, which means that the responsibility for the killing is not directly mine so I think that makes it perfectly acceptable for me."
Hence the "sort of" as I wrote. Although some eggs do get fertilized but then die spontaneously or due to "failure to thrive" from lack of incubation.
No, it doesn't need to be rewritten at all. I was quite technically correct as I wrote it. You're just upset because it is correct and undermines a presumption you had.
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
Maybe this is what you do, but generally speaking the annual 75,000,000,000 cows, chickens, pigs, and sheep that are prematurely curtailed have been killed. But not by you.
OK -- What's wrong with mung beans, and how does one eat smoke?
So I won't be getting an answer to my question about how many times you've eaten meat from animals that died of natural causes then.
So how do you eat finned, four-leggèd, or feathered beings without killing them?
Road kill, or a slaughterhouse you have no stock in?
Not even a little.
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
And for every hen raised for egg production purposes, one male chick is ground ("macerated") or gassed. Male chicks are deemed unproductive for the egg industry, as they do not lay eggs, and their meat has no economic value for the meat industry. The latest figure for this practice is 330 million a year in Europe alone.
Last edited:
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
I fear there was humour involved.
Mung beans equals gas,smoking after equals explosion.
Have you seen spawning salmon? They're rotting to death. By the time they die they're so decrepit and hormone-filled who would want to eat them?
How would you get them to spawn in open-ocean farms? Where would they lay their eggs?
Salmon are obligate river spawners
Are the sources of those eggs treated humanely? Do they enjoy normal chicken lives, and have normal chicken lifespans?
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
Why don't you just say "Actually I don't have a problem with meat eating" instead of coming out with all this weasel-worded ****?
A pueblo-dwelling tribe in the American Southwest survives by farming ten hectares of land, irrigated from a local river. A chemical company annexes eight hectares of their land to build a factory, and discharges chemical waste into the river. Is this right and proper; is this moral?
A community of animals depends on 100 hectares of habitat to survive. A farmer comes, cuts down the trees, and plows up 80 hectares. Is this OK? What's the difference?
A community of animals depends on 100 hectares of habitat to survive. A farmer comes, cuts down the trees, and plows up 80 hectares. Is this OK? What's the difference?
No backpeddaling done. I never said that I only ate such animals. I just wrote that it is possible to do so.
So I won't be getting an answer to my question about how many times you've eaten meat from animals that died of natural causes then.
In other words, you can't refute what I wrote.
None of this is relevant since I never wrote that I did these things, only that it is possible. Which it is. You can't claim that all eating of animals requires killing them. Period.
Furthermore it is also possible to humanely and cruelty-freely euthanize animals in order to eat them. Regardless of whether you personally object to that being possible or not. If you want to go down the path of denying any distinction between euthanizing and killing then you must also condemn all the veterinarians that euthanize animals to end their suffering.